Week 1: 4/1/2011 - 4/2/2011
No activity / TAKS testing Week 2: 4/3/2011 - 4/9/2011: Disabilities Technology Training Follow-up
This week I decided to get together with my colleagues Maria Gutierrez and Rolando Herrera to get feedback and conclude a follow-up training from way back in September. My goal was to determine the frequency of use for the accessibility tools with their students whether they are in a lab setting or in an resource class. I learned that Ms. Corrie Gutierrez utilized the Read, Write Gold program very frequently in her resource language arts classes. As you may recall, majority of the training in September was on a specific product that our district purchased called Read & Write Gold. This piece of software is the complete package, it has reading support including: text-to-speech, dictionary, pronunciation tutor, translator, word prediction tools, verb checker and so many other tools that I did not even get to cover. During the September training I taught these teachers how to find and manipulate the settings to accommodate to the students disabilities including adjusting screen resolution, using magnifier, onscreen keyboard, using narrator and dictation tools. According to Ms. Gutierrez, she utilized the Read, Write, Gold program nearly three times a week when in the resource class and a few times when she was in the inclusion class. In fact, I recall installing the program in every single one of the classrooms that she is assigned to as an inclusion teacher. Rollie, on the other hand, did not use it as frequent as Ms. Gutierrez. He admits that his students could use the program especially since his students are always in the lab setting doing history projects. History by far is the subject that has the most research projects on campus and it is imperative that Rollie utilize Read, Write, Gold in the lab. As a result of this, I will install Read, Write, Gold on all the computers that are used for research in the tech dome. Rollie has agreed to try using it more often since his history classes have a project due this week and are scheduled to visit the technology lab. I met with both these teachers during team planning in the special education resource classroom. I also offered to answer any technical questions on Read, Write, Gold but both teachers claim that they know how to use it quite well. I believe that this activity was related to and helped me master the following standards/indicators: TF-I.A.2 / TF-II.A.3. / TF-III.B.1. / TF-VI.B.2. The most important indicators and standards met here in this activity were (TF-II.A.3. / TF-III.B.1) because together we identified and practiced using tools that support the needs of special education students who struggle and require the use of adaptive and assistive technologies to close the achievement gap. Also, with diverse learners in mind we all learned new strategies that can be used in resource classes that help diverse learners especially with the Read & Write Gold program.
Sources: Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Week 3: 4/10/2011 - 4/16/2011: SBDM Committee on Technology Needs Assessment
I have been part of the campus SBDM committee and this time around I have been put in charge of completing the technology portion of the campus needs assessment required by NCLB.We were asked to Look for patterns in the data that reveal trends or insights about the district/school technology. After gathering this data we identified statements about the strengths, as well as the priority need areas for the campus. We discovered that we had plenty of great technology available and a streamlined infrastructure. In other words, our campus has the technology to do great things however the needs assessment discovered a disturbing trend. We created three general statements on the greatest needs for our campus in order to be successful and increase student achievement. First, we discovered through a range of surveys that technology training on accessing software in teacher's subject area was a major priority. Next, teachers seem to lack the basic knowledge needed to operate productivity programs such as Power Point, Publisher or Microsoft Word. Last, it was disturbing to know that teachers and staff still need training on how to access and utilize school email. We discovered most of this data by distributing short 2-minute surveys (rating scale) during department and team planning. Other sources used were the yearly STaR chart data. It doesn't surprise me that our school has plenty of technology available however does not have the adequate training in order to maximize the use and reap the benefits of technology. This in turn affects our student population as teachers become weary and discouraged to assign technology based assignments or use technology on a frequent basis in the classroom. I suggest that we focus on training, training and more training for our teachers and staff. Throughout my internship, I have helped just a small percentage of the teacher population with technology training however we need to get all teachers on board and impact the large scale of teachers through a campus and/or district initiative.
I believe that his activity was related to and helped me master the following standards/indicators: TF-VIII.D.1. / TF-VIII.D.2. / TF-VIII.D.3. This activity, along with my SBDM team, accomplished to participate in a cooperative group to identify the processes that were effective and ineffective as well as identify state and local standards for integrating technology in the school environment as a means to improve campus success initiatives.
Sources: Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Week 4: 4/17/2011 - 4/23/2011
No activity Week 5: 4/24/2011 - 4/30/2011
No activity / TAKS testing
No activity / TAKS testing
Week 2: 4/3/2011 - 4/9/2011: Disabilities Technology Training Follow-up
This week I decided to get together with my colleagues Maria Gutierrez and Rolando Herrera to get feedback and conclude a follow-up training from way back in September. My goal was to determine the frequency of use for the accessibility tools with their students whether they are in a lab setting or in an resource class. I learned that Ms. Corrie Gutierrez utilized the Read, Write Gold program very frequently in her resource language arts classes. As you may recall, majority of the training in September was on a specific product that our district purchased called Read & Write Gold. This piece of software is the complete package, it has reading support including: text-to-speech, dictionary, pronunciation tutor, translator, word prediction tools, verb checker and so many other tools that I did not even get to cover. During the September training I taught these teachers how to find and manipulate the settings to accommodate to the students disabilities including adjusting screen resolution, using magnifier, onscreen keyboard, using narrator and dictation tools. According to Ms. Gutierrez, she utilized the Read, Write, Gold program nearly three times a week when in the resource class and a few times when she was in the inclusion class. In fact, I recall installing the program in every single one of the classrooms that she is assigned to as an inclusion teacher. Rollie, on the other hand, did not use it as frequent as Ms. Gutierrez. He admits that his students could use the program especially since his students are always in the lab setting doing history projects. History by far is the subject that has the most research projects on campus and it is imperative that Rollie utilize Read, Write, Gold in the lab. As a result of this, I will install Read, Write, Gold on all the computers that are used for research in the tech dome. Rollie has agreed to try using it more often since his history classes have a project due this week and are scheduled to visit the technology lab. I met with both these teachers during team planning in the special education resource classroom. I also offered to answer any technical questions on Read, Write, Gold but both teachers claim that they know how to use it quite well. I believe that this activity was related to and helped me master the following standards/indicators: TF-I.A.2 / TF-II.A.3. / TF-III.B.1. / TF-VI.B.2. The most important indicators and standards met here in this activity were (TF-II.A.3. / TF-III.B.1) because together we identified and practiced using tools that support the needs of special education students who struggle and require the use of adaptive and assistive technologies to close the achievement gap. Also, with diverse learners in mind we all learned new strategies that can be used in resource classes that help diverse learners especially with the Read & Write Gold program.
Sources:
Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Week 3: 4/10/2011 - 4/16/2011: SBDM Committee on Technology Needs Assessment
I have been part of the campus SBDM committee and this time around I have been put in charge of completing the technology portion of the campus needs assessment required by NCLB.We were asked to Look for patterns in the data that reveal trends or insights about the district/school technology. After gathering this data we identified statements about the strengths, as well as the priority need areas for the campus. We discovered that we had plenty of great technology available and a streamlined infrastructure. In other words, our campus has the technology to do great things however the needs assessment discovered a disturbing trend. We created three general statements on the greatest needs for our campus in order to be successful and increase student achievement. First, we discovered through a range of surveys that technology training on accessing software in teacher's subject area was a major priority. Next, teachers seem to lack the basic knowledge needed to operate productivity programs such as Power Point, Publisher or Microsoft Word. Last, it was disturbing to know that teachers and staff still need training on how to access and utilize school email. We discovered most of this data by distributing short 2-minute surveys (rating scale) during department and team planning. Other sources used were the yearly STaR chart data. It doesn't surprise me that our school has plenty of technology available however does not have the adequate training in order to maximize the use and reap the benefits of technology. This in turn affects our student population as teachers become weary and discouraged to assign technology based assignments or use technology on a frequent basis in the classroom. I suggest that we focus on training, training and more training for our teachers and staff. Throughout my internship, I have helped just a small percentage of the teacher population with technology training however we need to get all teachers on board and impact the large scale of teachers through a campus and/or district initiative.
I believe that his activity was related to and helped me master the following standards/indicators: TF-VIII.D.1. / TF-VIII.D.2. / TF-VIII.D.3. This activity, along with my SBDM team, accomplished to participate in a cooperative group to identify the processes that were effective and ineffective as well as identify state and local standards for integrating technology in the school environment as a means to improve campus success initiatives.
Sources:
Williamson, J., & Redish, T. (2009). ISTE's technology facilitation and leadership standards: what every K-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene,OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Week 4: 4/17/2011 - 4/23/2011
No activity
Week 5: 4/24/2011 - 4/30/2011
No activity / TAKS testing